Newshoggers Comments
A-friggin-men, Cernig.
This is really getting silly.
It's funny, I'm thinking of the number of times that conversations amongst my poetry peers have resulted in similar poems being written. Perhaps I give Obama too much credit when I put this type of thing in the category of creative collaboration, but as you know he's always struck me as more poet than most politicians are able to be.
I'm not objective, but when two candidates are faced with similar attacks, are close friends, and one of them already won his election, I'm not at all surprised to see similar arguments and rhetoric presented to parry those attacks in the second candidate's campaign.
This is too damn funny. Obama uses everyone's speeches with no credit usually. Always it brings to mind Joe Biden. That it ended his bid for President, because it is considered a "moral issue" yet, all Obama does is basically "my bad", goes on, nothing happens, cuz he's "got game". Give me a break.
This claim of fake attribution is a redherring by Hillary Rodham Clinton's sinking ship. Does US President George W Bush credit David Frum when he uses 'axes of evil'. Does any President credit his speech writers, whether Reagan, George H Bush, William Jefferson Clinton or George W Bush? At what point do reasonable people recognize that all of these petty bickering points are simply the result of Hillary Clinton trying to grab headlines? You folks all are obliging her. Why don't you ask her if she writes all of her speeches or whether she ever got permission from Barack Obama to use 'si, se puede' (Yes We Can) or "fired up and ready to go"?
This all begs the question: Is Hillary Clinton the kind of divisive, negative and anti-hope candidate that is needed in 21st century America? Can we say Bill Clinton, "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky." Or, "it depends on what you mean by sex." She should not throw stones if she lives in a glass house!
This is exactly the kind of petulant and shallow rubbish one expects in a campaign involving Bill and Hillary Clinton. Their straight-faced nerve never ceases to amaze. Since the charges the Clintons level against Obama are virtually identical to the tact taken by Patrick’s rival in 2006, it only makes sense that the two would share notes. These are political sound-bytes we’re talking about here, not a Pulitzer-nominated novel or proprietary software codes.
In the beginning of The War Room, D.A. Pennebaker’s documentary on the ’92 Clinton campaign, James Carville says to a room full of staff: "If we can win this, we can knock this sh** back forever". What are the chances that an Obama win would knock the Clintons nonsense back forever? That would be nice.
Yet another reason I won't be voting for Hillary.
Kat
You should not be so flippant about plagiarism, which is a serious offense that violates federal law. See http://www.plagiarism.org/
learni...plagiarism.html for a proper definiton of plagiarism. Plagiarism has nothing to do with whether or not someone implictly granted permission, it has everything to do with properly citing the source of the information. In this instance it is clear that Obama committed plagiarism, which he should properly acknowledge. If one of my students did this they could face severe penalties, including expulsion.
Alan,
If Obama was an Ivy League student or otherwise in the acadenmic field I wouldn't be downplaying this, because there's a vast gulf between academia and political speeches. I think you need some perspective. No-one accuses their workmate of plagiarism for repeating a joke, for instance.
Neither Patrick, nor his speechwriters, are alleging breech of copyright. Quite the reverse in fact - the Patrick camp is just fine with Obama using their ideas and words. That seems to me to be authorisation for fair use by the original authors. I fail to see how there's any federal crime involved, or even misdemeanor as most plagiarism cases are treated.
By Cernig
And more to the point, it sounds very much like Patrick (& company) and Obama (& company) have discussed this amongst themselves. It really puts Patrick more in the league of contributor to the content of the speeches than some victimized pol whose ideas were "lifted". He contributed them through a conversational process that I suspect is very similar to any type of creative collaboration.
well, because the media abdicated its role to scrutinize -- rather than valorize -- obama, clinton has got to go petty. he has been beyond any analysis whatsoever. i think the media are crappy.
Obama's entire candidacy is based on oratory and we learned today that some of the words of the oratory aren't even his. It isn't surprising that politicians lift phrases and ideas. What's surprising is that the majority of Obama supporters actually believe that his oratory is fresh and new. It isn't folks. His entire approach is old and used, simply re-packaged and marketed to look like a brand new product.
We voters are not stupid, or are we?
Can we all not see that Hillary is for Hillary and that her motivation is for herself and not for the country? Her motivation to help the country is driven by power, dominance and control rather than service, help and sincere and honest compassion!
Do these Hillary supporters not see that?
Three reasons why Hillary is not winning:
1.) Her real character of power, manipulation, and divisiveness is shining through. How she has ran her campaign is an indication of how she will run the country. Remember the situation with her daughter from the comment of the MSNBC reporter? She wanted more than blood but also vindication. This showed to me not only a lack of forgiveness and tolerance but a welding of power, revenge and dominance. She would have done much more for herself by just giving the reporter a pass or settling the manner privately and in consideration. However that takes character and that is her problem she is void of character. The problem the Clinton campaign strategists cannot solve is Hillary not Obama.
2.) Obama is a good person. Attacks do not work well with a good person. Also when you attack someone you only reveal something about yourself. In essence you are attacking yourself. Every attack and criticism she gives Obama could also be given to herself to some degree. Barack is a family man with an outstanding wife and can connect with the common person because he is the success story of the common person, the American dream! Bill hurts Hillary and also hurts the sacred office of President of the United States with his behavior and dramatic productions for the camera. A President or past President cannot act in that manner. The office of President is the ideological pinnacle to which Americans look up to. That office cannot be tainted, which Bill Clinton did as President and is doing now. Conversely Michelle is an asset to Barack and is an example of the ordinary person being the extraordinary person.
3.) He is an excellent communicator. We are finding out from this election and elections in the past that Americans respond to communicators. Remember Ronald Reagan as the great communicator and Martin Luther King. Leaders do not have to necessarily have to have all the answers because good ideas and the great ideas come from a synergy of many people inspired to a common goal. What makes leaders is their ability to inspire, bring people together not apart and motivate people to dream of something great and better yet be something great! Great men and women start with dreams and expectations or hope of fulfilling that dream. Obama has inspired me to simply expect more from myself and aspire to something great. That is an example of leadership.
This latest example of Hillary on plagiarism is only example of one thing her character. It is low, desperate and reveals a woman who has been a master of deceiving almost half of the country of who she really is!
However it
I used to support the Clinton's but all this petty negative attack politics has gone way too far -- funny if it weren't so sad and weren't so revealing of their win at any cost philosophy. PEOPLE: all politicians have speechwriters! All comedians have joke writers. They agree to have their work used without a credit after every sentence. Clearly Obama had permission, was encouraged to use these lines, which came from speechwriters in the first place. What is Obama's genius is that he selects good writers, he puts together great speeches from his and their work, and he delivers them in a compelling manner. All of which makes him an effective leader.
Hillary, if you can't win this nomination without resorting to pathetic Republican dirty tricks, then go home.
oh, give us a break hillary. i supported and respected you from the beginning until these last few weeks. i loved bill all 8 years and post-prez. until this past month. the ugliness in the face of desperation that you clintons have displayed is so disappointing. this win-at-all-cost approach has tarnished my view of you and your "cant let it go" husband. i just hope you get crashed in the rest of the primaries/caucuses and go back to pretending to be a new yorker. i just don't think that i can ever respect you again.
Comment deleted by Fester for racist language.
Edited By Siteowner
We don't need another dynasty. No more Bush, no more Clinton. No more wink wink nod nod buddy buddy up in Kennebunkport. No more.
I don't know how much better Obama would be but the people want him and not her. And her campaign is freaking out.
Read BlackBoxVoting.org and find out who exactly did the caucus and primary vote tallying in the states Hillary won big so far.
As much as I'd love to see a woman President, bitter Hillary is the wrong prescription.
Who cares who unearthed the stuff. Campaigns do that stuff all the time, from all sides, in case anybody has any illusions otherwise - there is no saints in this game. The question is: Is it a fair criticism, did Obama plagiarise, and, if he did, is it a single incident or a pattern? Even more, is it important in the scheme of things or just a distraction from the real issues?
The only people who care about plagiarism are authors and students. Who knew that the romance author industry had more ethics that a presidencial candidate? Now students will be able to use the Obama defense when they are charged with plagiarism in college. This is sad and funny. Crap, I'm a mother, I can't vote for Obama. So now I have no idea who I'm going to vote for.
Tina, both romance authors and academics have to worry about a different and more stringent set of standards under the law for plagiarism. Their industry norm is strict about attribution.
Think of politicians as having the same standards as comedians - neither stops after every punchline to credit their writers. That's their industry norm.
It doesn't mean, though, that romance writers are more ethical. Fabio claims headline credit on bookcovers all the time where he's probably at best a minimal contributor, for instance. University senior Profs often steal the headline when their staff did all the hard work. That's not plagiarism but it's hardly ethical.
They're just all in different lines of work.
Regards, C
Tell you what, you can't ignore just because something meets the criteria of a definition, the ETHICAL side of it.
It is plainly intellectually dishonest to ignore the same tone and speech patterns, along with the same words, and say it's no big deal.
He's a fraud.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4...h?
v=4o166Eb_puo
Commenting by HaloScan
